Coming soon: the USS Britney Spears?

posted at 9:15 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

That’s an exaggeration, but not by much. The famed aircraft carrier USS Enterprisedeparted Sunday on its final deployment, the 22nd of its amazing career of more than 50 years. Later this year, the Big E will return home to be decommissioned. The US Navy has a new carrier in the works, designated CVN-80 but as yet unnamed (Enterprise is CVN-65, for those keeping score). Given the odd decisions on naming naval ships, Mark Krikorian has begun circulating a petition to transfer the name Enterprise to CVN-80 — or find a more appropriate name than limited imaginations have suggested of late:

But after this year the U.S. Navy will no longer have an Enterprise, which is why there’s a petition to name the next planned carrier, CVN-80, the USS Enterprise. Sign it, because we’ve gotten into the habit of naming our greatest warships after politicians, and not even dead ones — one of the newest carriers is the USS George H. W. Bush. Look, I voted for the guy, and he was a whole lot better than the current occupant, but nothing named by the U.S. government — not a building, not a scholarship program, certainly not one of the greatest warships built by mankind — should be named after a living person. Except for posthumous Medal of Honor recipients, it seems to me you should be dead for 50 years, preferably 100, before your name is even eligible to be considered for a naval ship.

And while we’re naming ships after Jimmy Carter and John Murtha and Bob Hope, keep in mind there’s no USS Lexington or Yorktown or Saratoga or Midway or Khe Sanh or, if we want to name them after people, Benjamin Franklin or John Adams or Jefferson or Madison or Monroe or Jackson. There have been nearly 1,000 Marine and Navy combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan — any one of those is more appropriate as the name of a ship than the USS Gabrielle Giffords.

I recall when the first Space Shuttle was built, and Star Trek fans wanted it named Enterprise. They succeeded, but the joke ended up being on them (well, us); the Enterprise was a test vehicle that never flew in space.

At least that name made sense, however. It hearkened back to naval days when ships took names that represented the values of the nation that launched them — Enterprise, Intrepid, Reliant, to name a few from American and British tradition, or that honored famous military victories like Yorktown and Saratoga, as Krikorian suggests. We named nuclear submarines after the states, which might be a little more prosaic given their funding, but at least they represented the people as a whole rather than a living politician. Even in Star Trek, the shuttles always took the names of famous explorers or those who had died in the effort to reach into space, such as Ellison Onizuka, Gus Grissom, and Christa McAuliffe. There wasn’t a shuttle named Jean-Luc Picard in ST:TNG. Instead, the naming conventions of the past several years seem to express the notion that values and history matter less than self-celebration.

Let’s name CVN-80 Enterprise and continue a tradition of audacity and excellence in the carrier fleet. But even more to the point, let’s return to a tradition of honoring the values and history of this country in the naming of our naval ships. Stop the madness before we christen a new ship the USS Britney Spears and we all have to say, “Oops! They did it again.”

Update: The last line in the penultimate paragraph should have read “matter less” rather than “matter more.” I’ve fixed it, thanks to Twitter follower Bcwlk.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

We named nuclear submarines after the states, which might be a little more prosaic given their funding,

That naming of the Ohio-class ballistic missile (some now giant Tomahawk guided-missle/SEAL delivery) subs after states actually carried on the tradition of naming the most-powerful capital ships after states when the battleships were retired. I believe the reference you’re seeking is the naming of the Los Angeles class of attack submarines after cities (previously reserved for support ships), done so by Admiral Hyman Rickover to ensure Congressional funding.

I think your naming ships after politicians is correct wait 50 years. I would like to carry on that idea that the same rule be applied to all federal projects. There is way to much of these federeal projects floating around without naming after every politician.

I still think the USS Gabby Giffords was used for political reasons, in that if they ever try to cut the number of carriers, the people who cut out the later ones sequentially will be known as killing the USS Gabby Giffords and if they try to cut it nonsequentially they will be accused of politics just to keep the USS Gabby Giffords as one of the remaining ships. I think it is insurance for budget cuts.

Thanks for posting this. I signed the petition to name the new ship Enterprise. The current Enterprise served extremely honorably, especially in WWII. She deserves to have a namesake.

And, no…this doesn’t have anything to do with Star Trek (although that is really cool). The Enterprise on Star Trek, like the Reliant and Intrepid on Star Trek took their names from naval tradition, just as the real-life Enterprise did.

Once they named the Jimmy Carter it was all over. Seriously, where is a name like that going to inspire fear and respect in an enemy? Most names are like that, living and dead politicians – it just looks comical. You can almost hear the bad guys laughing.

With one singular exception, the REAGAN

Unlike the other names, THAT one seems to fairly ooze righteous power and impending doom.

Here is an idea, let’s name the next carrier after the most famous ship in the U.S. inventory.

CVN-80 the USS Constitution, because we need to remember it now before it’s gone forever.

BTW, I know that the USS Constitution is still an active ship, Old Ironsides is still alive and well in Boston Harbor. I was on her just last spring as a chaperone for my daughters 8th grade feild trip to Beantown. She is still mighty impressive being first launched in 1797.

Naming a ship after Gabbie Giffords is bad enough but not nearly offensive as the one to be named after Jack Murtha. A corrupt bastard on the dole from defense contractors for decades. And, Murtha, you might remember is the one who called those Marines murderers.

As to CVN-80, I’d like to see the name go to another recently decommissioned carrier, USS America.

It is appropriate to name a Destroyer the George H. W. Bush. Destroyers are named for famous and heroic Navy and Marine Corps personnel. Bush I was the youngest naval aviator in history. That is significant enough to name a DDG after him.

It is appropriate to name a Destroyer the George H. W. Bush. Destroyers are named for famous and heroic Navy and Marine Corps personnel. Bush I was the youngest naval aviator in history. That is significant enough to name a DDG after him.

jerryofva on March 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Seems more fitting that they are naming an aircraft carrier after him.